WEXPRO COMPANY, Appellant (Petitioner/Plaintiff), v. Terry BRIMHALL, in her official capacity as the Uinta County Treasurer; The Board of County Commissioners for the County of Uinta, Appellees (Respondents/Defendants).
No. 98-136.
Supreme Court of Wyoming.
June 2, 2000.
7 P.3d 42
Finally, this court has held that “[e]quitable considerations will not be entirely disregarded even in tax cases.” Morrison-Knudson Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 58 Wyo. 500, 135 P.2d 927, 939 (1943). Because Enron‘s overpayments exceeded its underpayments for each of the tax years in question, the County was never deprived [of the] use of the underpayment dollars.
While Amoco Production Company was not denied a hearing, it was denied the opportunity to claim a refund by virtue of the audit process carried on by the taxing authorities. That difference does not serve to distinguish the equitable principle articulated in the prior cases, which should be applied here. Neither is there any apparent indication that Amoco Production Company will have an opportunity to present its claims because of audits commenced later as this Court suggested Texaco would have in Texaco, Inc. Further, there does not appear to be any opportunity for Amoco Production Company to profit from deliberate underreporting such as was assumed in the discussion of policy considerations in Moncrief v. Wyoming State Bd. of Equalization, 856 P.2d 440, 445 (Wyo.1993). In fact, this case appears to fit somewhere in between Moncrief and Kunard, and there certainly is no reason to deny Amoco Production Company the opportunity to recover those overpayments it sought to address in its amended returns, which were not processed while the audit process was completed. Obviously, this is the result the Board sought to achieve, but the majority has ruled that it did not properly apply the pertinent statute. Perhaps the Board has no authority to invoke equitable relief for taxpayers, but this Court can afford equitable relief, and we should do that in this case.
I would affirm the Board of Equalization in all respects.
Representing Appellee: Michael L. Greer, Uinta County and Prosecuting Attorney, Evanston, Wyoming.
Before LEHMAN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and TAYLOR,* JJ.
GOLDEN, Justice.
Pursuant to
In its brief, Appellant Wexpro Company informs us that the issues and facts in this case are also present in Wyo. State Dept. of Rev. v. Amoco Prod. Co., 7 P.3d 35 (Wyo. 2000). In Amoco, we held that “[o]ffsets or refunds pursuant to
We agree with Wexpro‘s analysis of Amoco and will apply that holding to answer the certified questions. Therefore, we answer the first certified question in the affirmative; Wexpro‘s refund claims are barred. We need not answer the second certified question.
CERTIFIED QUESTIONS
- Are Wexpro‘s claims, that refunds of ad valorem taxes must be calculated by offsetting overpayments and underpayments between tax years and tax districts, barred under the decisions in Texaco Inc. v. State Board of Equalization and Thunder Basin Coal Company v. Board of Equalization because Wexpro‘s audit was commenced prior to March 11, 1991, the effective date of
W.S. 39-2-214 ? - If Wexpro‘s claims are not barred, is the County required to offset overpayments and underpayments between tax years and tax districts in calculating Wexpro‘s entitlement to ad valorem tax refunds?
These questions encompass all of the issues in the case, and the parties do not suggest any additional issues.
FACTS
In a
Wexpro is a significant oil and gas producer in southwest Wyoming. At issue in this case are ad valorem taxes (also called gross products taxes) which are assessed each year by Uinta County based on Wexpro‘s prior year‘s production. Wexpro‘s 1984-1988 oil and gas production in Uinta, Sweetwater and Lincoln counties was audited by the Department of Audit. The audit was engaged on June 21, 1990, and a final assessment letter was issued by the Department of Revenue (“DOR“) on February 3, 1994. The assessment was appealed to the State Board of Equalization (“State Board“), which issued an initial decision on February 24, 1995. That decision was interlocutory and required Wexpro and the DOR to make certain calculations and report back to the State Board.
* Retired November 2, 1998.
In arriving at its final decision, the State Board required the DOR and Wexpro to develop joint schedules for all of the wells and each of the years. In those schedules the DOR agreed to net overpayments and underpayments between years for severance tax purposes. The State Board approved the schedules in the final order.
The State Board‘s decision ordered Uinta and Sweetwater Counties to refund money to Wexpro for overpaid gross products tax for tax years 1985 through 1989 (production years 1984-1988). The Uinta County Treasurer calculated the amount of the refund and paid Wexpro $144,002.99. Wexpro believes the refund was calculated without regard to applicable statutes and case law and that Wexpro is owed an additional amount of $48,238.06. Wexpro‘s objections were made known to the Treasurer. The Uinta County Board of County Commissioners ratified the decision of the Treasurer, in an action that has been reported to the Appellant but not documented. Such ratification occurred because
This case arose by Wexpro‘s filing of a Petition for Administrative Action and a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Complaint“). The Complaint challenges the method by which the Uinta County Treasurer calculated the amount of an ad valorem tax refund due to Wexpro. The Appellees filed an Answer and Counter Petition for Declaratory Judgment. The Appellees filed a Motion to Dismiss and supporting brief, the Appellant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief and the Court determined, after review of the record, that it would certify the case to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
DISCUSSION
Wexpro contends that its claims for ad valorem tax refunds must be calculated by netting overpayments and underpayments between tax years within an audit period and between tax districts within the county. Wexpro relies on Kunard v. Enron Oil & Gas Co., 869 P.2d 132 (Wyo.1994), and
Wexpro suggests that
The taxpayer is entitled to receive an offsetting credit for any overpaid gross product or severance tax identified by an audit that is within the scope of the audit period, without regard to the limitation period for requesting refunds. In calculating interest and penalty, the department or board of county commissioners shall first compute a net deficiency amount after subtracting any offsetting credit and then calculate any interest and penalty due.
If we were to consider this statutory language and the remedial nature of the statute, without more, we might agree with Wexpro‘s contention that its refund claims are not barred. However,
The effective date of the act was March 11, 1991. Id.; Texaco, 845 P.2d at 401. The audit of Wexpro began on June 21, 1990. Therefore,
CONCLUSION
Wexpro‘s claims “that refunds of ad valorem taxes must be calculated by offsetting overpayments and underpayments between tax years and tax districts” are barred under our previous decisions because Wexpro‘s audit was commenced prior to March 11, 1991, the effective date of
THOMAS, Justice, dissenting.
I must dissent from the majority resolution of this case in accordance with the views I have expressed in Department of Revenue v. Amoco Production Co., 7 P.3d 35 (Wyo. 2000). The majority has resolved this case consistently with the resolution of Amoco Production Co. I would reach a contrary result consistent with the views expressed in my concurring and dissenting opinion in that case. Consequently, I would answer the first certified question in this case, “No.” That would lead to consideration of the second certified question, which I would answer “Yes.”